Internet Censorship

[Lennycorn]

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Without the internet, how would we even know that the news we are fed via mainstream media is filtered and controlled? THAT is what the government wants to curtail..... Our FREEDOM to try to reach for the TRUTH.

A .....goverment for the people, by the people.... just isn't true anymore.

 

[Nanci]

I agree with you Rich, I am going for Ron Paul as well.

Please don't throw your votes away. If we get split, there won't be a change of administration.

 

[bitsy]

Oh yeah, don't expect them to give up without a fight. They will likely shelve this idea with elections coming up this year, but once that is over with, and them knowing that most people have an extremely short memory span, it WILL come back in full force once the elections are behind them. And quite likely, once they see the level of protest against it, as some hidden rider in a much larger bill so they can sneak it through and then claim ignorance of the fine print.

And by "They", I would read Democrats, Republicans, Martians... whoever gets into power. As someone outside the US who would still have been affected by SOPA, I firmly believe that this is a global political - and not a US party-political - issue.

Whoever is in power, will try to resurrect this in some form once the dust settles. Every politician of every hue, anywhere in the world, has a vested interest in a level of censorship - as long as they're the ones controlling it. All it takes is for the electorate (where there is one) to be scared enough to believe that they need this additional "security".

And don't believe the election hype. You only have to look over to us in the UK and what happened with our last election. The Liberal Democrats have pretty much sold their soul in order to share power with the Conservatives. They've dumped the election promises that meant most to me personally, and in one case have now taken the opposite stance (elected on a promise to eliminate university fees in the long term and once in power, were key players in tripling them - a matter of weeks between the two stances).

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that it won't change with a move from Democrat to Republican in the US.

 

[terryr1]

hi every one how u all doing

 

[tsst]

It needs to be a move from democrat/republican to 'the people' as our forefathers intended.

I think Ben said it well ...

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

I am sure there are some on here that believe me to be an anti-government nut. Some may always think that. The truth is I am simply anti-politician. I believe very much in our constitution and the government intended by our forefathers. The socialist twisted bloated controlling mess we have in DC today no longer even faintly resembles that intent IMHO.

I read an article the other day about a new law banning 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. Does anyone in the USA truly believe this is the kind of absurdity our forefathers intended for us when they gave their very lives? Have we become so inept at life that we require a gov department to tell us what light bulb to use? Have we become so incompetent that we literally need a bureaucratically appointed babysitter for every decision we make? Really?!?! Have we totally given up on the freedom we so treasured just 236 years ago? Are we willing to trade freedom for anything?

I am so disappointed daily that we are so willing to trade freedom not even for security but simply the illusion of security that some politician promises. Did so many true Americans die freeing us from one aristocracy so we could dishonor that sacrifice by so willingly accepting a new aristocracy?

Freedom is never free. We must fight to keep the precious gift that so many paid the ultimate price to give us.

 

[terryr1]

your a very angry women

:cheers: :cheers:

hi iam just here to make friend lol tsst

 

[beautifullywild77]

:cheers: Here here Tsst!

Nanci, I wouldnt dear split. I am going for Ron Paul but if he doesn't make the ballot I will be voting for whoever is against the current administration. I am a registered Independent so I can not vote who runs for each party at this time. I am in the process of registering myself republican, but I dont think it will happen in time.

 

[tsst]

Wouldn't it be funny if every non-Obama following voter registered democrat and wrote in Ron Paul. It would be hilarious if he was their primary winning vote getter!

 

[beautifullywild77]

LOL that would be funny!

 

[schnebbles]

I agree with Carinata! 100% and hope it doesn't happen again.

 

[tsst]

LOL that would be funny!

It may also be a way throw the debunk monkey wrench into the systemic problem that the two party system has become.

 

[Carinata]

Please don't throw your votes away. If we get split, there won't be a change of administration.

Exacty Nanci! We can't loose votes that could be used to get the lesser of 2 evils- AKA The Great RINO, Mitt Romney. We CANNOT tolerate another 4 years of Obama.

 

[kathylove]

I will also vote for whomever is running against Obama, just as I did almost 4 years ago. Since it won't likely be Ron Paul, I will (again) not be voting FOR anyone, just AGAINST somebody - pretty much the same as always.

And don't think this is just a problem of the far left dems. It is true that they are usually the ones who want to take your money to give to somebody else to garner votes. And they are usually the group that wants to pass radical environmental, animal rights, and "feel good" legislation (such as Obama care), no matter the cost to individuals, businesses, and the economy. BUT - the right leaning GOP wants to legislate what you do in your bedroom and your married and personal life. Is one set of nanny state rules really that much better than the other?

We have had both parties rule us for decades now. Some have given us the War on Poverty that helped develop a welfare state. And some have given us the War on Drugs and War on Terror that gave us the Patriot Act, TSA, and lots of other curbs on freedoms to "fight the good fight". Now we have a War on Piracy, War on Pythons, and whatever else any politician can dream up to give more power and money to a bloated central government, and to corrupt the Constitution more each year.

I don't think it is a republican or democrat problem, or even a politician problem at its roots. I think it is a problem of our society, and goes beyond even just the US. I think it is human nature to care about that which affects you (or maybe close friends and family), and not worry too much about the rest. I do understand that apathy, and feel it myself at times. What I don't understand is the large numbers of ordinary citizens (not even including politicians who get some financial or power benefit) who campaign actively (or agree with passively) REMOVING rights they don't care about themselves. Why would a person POSSIBLY think that by taking away my rights to keep an animal that is essentially harmless, that I will be encouraged to support his right to do some weird but harmless thing - whatever that may be?

For example, I even voted against banning smoking in private business, even though I HATE breathing smoke. But I would personally support businesses that ban smoking. Those that cater to smokers should be allowed to do so - just without my support. To me, that is a PRIVATE deal between a biz and its customers - NOT the gov't! (tax payer supported buildings are a different story - no smoking there, IMO). So smokers should support MY rights, even if they don't care about animals or some other weird hobby I may have. That is the logical way it should work, but doesn't. And that is why I see it as a citizen / society problem.

I am very discouraged because I believe voters will keep on voting in the same old, same old, and accomplish the same old, same old. I am not sure that positive change can happen unless things get very bad first. When I saw the USSR fall apart through its own inefficiency and incompetence, and I see us heading toward a similar (but not quite as severe - yet) overly controlling central government, it does worry me a lot.

The only party that truly wants a smaller government and less control is the Libertarian Party. But remember that also means "less goodies" from the government, too.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!!

 

[Rich Z]

Please don't throw your votes away. If we get split, there won't be a change of administration.

Sorry, but not only no, but HELL NO. The last presidential election I voted for what I felt was the lesser of two evils and I felt downright DIRTY afterwards. Matter of fact, I can't remember EVER voting in any other manner but for the "lesser of two evils", that when push came to shove was not really "lesser" at all. It's always been "business as usual" no matter who gets into office, and certainly contrary to their campaign rhetoric and promises. And yet it continues unabated election after election, and there is apparently absolutely NO penalty for bald face LYING to the people voting for them. So of course they will continue with the lies, basically saying ANYTHING just to get our vote.

Enough, already! It's time, figuratively, to fire a shot across the bow of the political process that what they are trying to force down our throats is just not acceptable any longer. They are making the choices for us with the selection that gets offered to us. Which, quite honestly, just turns out to be different sides of the same coin.

So enough is enough. I'm just not voting for that "lesser" any longer. I will either vote for someone I WANT in office, or I will just write in "NOTA" (None Of The Above). If the ballot doesn't allow write-ins, then I will just rip it up and throw it in the trash, where it belongs, on the way out the door.

 

[kathylove]

Just an explanation of why I say "vote Libertarian" , but I don't always do so myself.

My strategy is that if the two main parties are running more-or-less equally bad candidates (as often happens), then I do vote Libertarian. But if one candidate is overwhelmingly worse (IMO) than the other, then I vote against that one, and "for" the lesser of the two evils.

Thus the inconsistency in my statements.

 

[Nova_C]

Word is that Lamar Smith (The man who originally introduced SOPA) plans to attach SOPA, now that the protests that Smith dismissed as 'misinformation' actually worked, to another bill he introduced, HR 1981, the Protect Children from Internet Pornographers Act.

HR 1981 makes it illegal to knowingly purchase child pornography, which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in the US, so has little to no legislative effect, other than to act as a smokescreen to allow Smith to ignore the wishes of the American people.

The massive online protest against SOPA and the fact that many American politicians dropped support for it immediately, and en mass, shows that your democracy is still active and your individual voices still matter.

Lamar Smith doesn't seem to think so, though, and perhaps he needs to learn.

While it is not yet an official rider to HR 1981, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on this man and this bill to make sure that the threat of being called a pedophile doesn't allow the government to trod on your rights.

 

[snakewispera snr]

How is the Land of the free and home of the brave considering censorship?
As some of you know, censorship is a rude word to me.....
I like the 'tinternet just as it is....... I don't need my only independent free thoughts being tampered with.......

 

[tsst]

Word is that Lamar Smith (The man who originally introduced SOPA) plans to attach SOPA, now that the protests that Smith dismissed as 'misinformation' actually worked, to another bill he introduced, HR 1981, the Protect Children from Internet Pornographers Act.

HR 1981 makes it illegal to knowingly purchase child pornography, which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in the US, so has little to no legislative effect, other than to act as a smokescreen to allow Smith to ignore the wishes of the American people.

The massive online protest against SOPA and the fact that many American politicians dropped support for it immediately, and en mass, shows that your democracy is still active and your individual voices still matter.

Lamar Smith doesn't seem to think so, though, and perhaps he needs to learn.

While it is not yet an official rider to HR 1981, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on this man and this bill to make sure that the threat of being called a pedophile doesn't allow the government to trod on your rights.

Unfortunately we have to keep an eye on every damn one of them including the one at 1600.

 

[bitsy]

While it is not yet an official rider to HR 1981, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on this man and this bill to make sure that the threat of being called a pedophile doesn't allow the government to trod on your rights.

Fear is their greatest means of control over you. Stick to your guns and stick together.

Good luck over there.

 

[beautifullywild77]

Attach it to the Child Pornagraphy is inticiting it to be more fear related. What happened to parents monitering their OWN children activities online and in real life?. ( I know that some parents are the problem with pornagraphy) but when does the fear mongering stop?